Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
self nom Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is one of the most commonly diagnosed mental disorders. Its also one of the more controversial. For quite some time, this article was subject to lots of bad edits. Myself and other editors have worked quite hard to clean it up. Today it is now stable, comprehensive, and well referenced. Last week it was accorded GA status. It satisfies all of the FA criteria. I think it is time that it be accorded FA status as well.-- *Kat* 07:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Has this article been through peer review? I have extensive comments, which might be better placed at PR. Sandy 12:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, but I'm beginning to wish that it had.
- I only listed some examples of my objections, which are actually far too extensive to list here. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong object. This article is not ready for FA: GA does not an FA make, and the work needed is extensive. (By the way, with the extent of sourcing, copy edit, and POV/OR issues, I would not approve it for GA either.) I would like to see you run this by the Medical Projects (there are at least 3 Medical WikiProjects that could help). Also, reviewing
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) can provide some helpful tips. I see problems with respect to copy editing, comprehensiveness, quality of sources, undue weight, and
WP:MOS issues at least. You might also want to review
Asperger syndrome, which recently went through
WP:FAR and was mostly brought to standard.
- Weasle words, for example, the first sentence encountered is extremely weasly: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (sometimes referred to as ADD) is thought to be a neurological disorder, always present from childhood, which manifests itself with symptoms such as hyperactivity, forgetfulness, poor impulse control, and distractibility.[2]
- The infobox is not complete and not correctly formatted, see Tourette syndrome for a more thorough example.
- The article is listy. For example, History is a list, should be converted to prose and referenced to higher quality sources.
- Actually I wouldn't mind splitting that section off into a separate article altogether. Would that work?
- Splitting entirely, no. See the guide to writing medical articles - History should be included. You could employ Summary Style, but I don't think it's needed. Read the History of Tourette syndrome to see if you can't convert this to prose. However, addressing these items will not be enough to make this article FA worthy. I suggest withdrawing the nom and dealing with this on the talk page or via peer review. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I wouldn't mind splitting that section off into a separate article altogether. Would that work?
- See also has too many unrelated articles, or articles that should be incorporated into the text. Why one researcher and not others?
- Sourcing - first, please include PMIDs on all journal-published sources, so the reader can easily access them. Far too many unofficial and personal websites are used in the sourcing of this article, and the sources stray much too far from peer-reviewed sources. Please review
this section of
WP:RS. When Biederman and his peers are cited only once, I immediately question the quality of references used. You should be using the highest-quality research and researchers, and no personal websites. POV is always an issue with ADHD. You also have LARGE blocks of text with absolutely no inline citations (for example, see Diagnosis).
- All medical articles that can be found on PubMed (most of them) have a PMID. Journals published outside the United States can't be found in PubMed.
- External links need extensive cleanup: please review
WP:EL and
WP:NOT. Wiki should link only to the highest-quality medical sources and established, recognized organiations, sites, and research: Wiki is not a support group. Linking to appropriate DMOZ categories is one way to avoid the link farm. Not all of your External links qualify as
reliable sources - see link I gave above.
- It is going to be
very difficultimpossible to find credible sources for the minority views that are prevalent. Especially for the sections on alternative medicines and Parental Roles. You just can't find that sort of information credible publications. Which is why the proponents of those views (like Drs. Sobo and Breggin) publish their clap trap on personal webpages.- I disagree. Similarly, on your possible advantages, you cite a non-reliable source, when others are available. Again, for positive aspects from reliable sources, see Tourette syndrome and Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. I know the research, and disagree that any of these views can't be presented from reliable sources. And, if there is no info from reliable sources for the info, it doesn't belong in the article, which is why the article is very POV and contains OR. I understand the controversy you are dealing with, and appreciate the amount of the cleanup you've done to get to where you are, but it is not FA material yet. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is going to be
- Further reading equally needs extensive cleanup; it is out of control. First, it should be alphabetical. Some of the sources are of questionable applicability to ADHD, and may just be adverts. Not all include ISBNs or PMIDs. There are far too many personal websites or sources that don't meet
WP:RS. Eliminate all personal ADHD websites unless you can justify them as reliable per the criteria above.
- I wouldn't call it out of control, but I have trimmed it down and alphabetized it considerably. By the time you read this (hopefully) I'll have the ISBNs in there as well.
- Now, turning to content:
- I see no mention of comorbids. Comorbidity in ADHD is very high, and huge issue: it should be mentioned.
- Terminology does not include DAMP, which - bogus or not - needs to be addressed.
- Your first image is a brain scan: there is extreme controversy and misinformation in the field (think D. Amen) surrounding the usefulness of brain imaging in ADHD. Presenting a brain scan early on - without discussing that controversy - could mislead the reader. The article says, it's not complete or comprehensive, has no source, and needs to be copy edited.
- Huh? The image is sourced.
- Not the point - the problem is that the issue of brain imaging work in ADHD is not dealt with comprehensively or accurately. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? The image is sourced.
- "Other diagnostic methods, such as those involving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), may detect the presence of ADHD by analyzing images of the patient's brain, are usually not recommended (see brain scans). " The article also says: "Neurometrics, PET scans, FMRI, or SPECT scans have the potential to provide a more objective diagnosis." To my knowledge, this statement is completely inaccurate. The usefulness of brain imaging is still as a research tool, not as a diagnostic tool. This article needs to cite its sources. Because of sentences like this, I suspect POV or OR in the article, and question its GA status.
- Paragraph has been reworded.
- Undue weight throughout: Diet as a cause is given more weight than more accepted causes.
- There really isn't an accepted "cause" of ADHD. Genetic factors come close but even then, there isn't much known. That paragraph
- On the other hand there are many, many theories related to diet. None of them have been given more than two sentences, but since four or five of the most common ones are mentioned, that paragraph is naturally longer.
- Genetic is the most accepted cause; undue weight is given to others. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Alternative treatment is given more weight than mainstream treatment (which is another List, by the way, which should be converted to prose). Again, POV and OR is apparent in the article, which is light on the medical viewpoint.
- I'll work on turning the mainstream treatment list into a paragraph.
- Examples of need for copyedit and better sources: "There is no compelling evidence that social factors, alone, can create ADHD. (However, see discussion of parental role in section below) The few environmental factors implicated fall in the realm of biohazards including alcohol, tobacco smoke, and lead poisoning. Allergies (including those to artificial additives)[29] as well as complications during pregnancy and birth--including premature birth--might also play a role." There are VERY good sources about the role of epigenetic factors in spectrum disorders, and the article cites none of the good ADHD medical research. Also, sentence needs copy edit.
- The article cites work done by Hallowell, Ratey, Zamektin, Wilens and Cohen among others. Those are some of the most highly respected researchers in the field.
- Short, stubby paragraphs and sections - the TOC is out of control and overwhelming, and many of the sections need to be converted to better prose.
- OK, there is MUCH more, but this should be enough. I don't think the article is close to being FA ready, POV and OR need to be addressed, the article needs to be cited and sources used improved, and I *highly* recommend you try to get the WikiProjects involved.
Sandy 15:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Opinion noted. :-) -- *Kat* 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is *much* more, but I don't believe FAC should be overburdened by listing everything here: it would take too many pages. Re-working a few sections and lists will not address the problems. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
On a separate note, the templates on the ADHD article talk page for FAC and GA have been altered; the GA template does not include the correct links, so it doesn't seem wise to be writing individual templates when standardized ones are supposed to be used. Sandy 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are the articles which should be linked to in the completed infobox:one of the WikiPhysicians should be able to help on that:
- eMed from pediatrics (with a clear discussion of prevailing thought on causes, diagnosis, treatment, comorbids, differential diagnoses)
- eMed from psychiatry (same)
- Medline
As you will see from these sources, the Wiki article still has quite a ways to go. Sandy 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -working in the field of mental health as I do, I can say that the causes of the syndrome of symptoms we call ADHD is much more controversial and disputed than schizophrenia, autism, PTSD and the article needs to reflect that rather than present it as a given. Cas Liber 20:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
self nom Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is one of the most commonly diagnosed mental disorders. Its also one of the more controversial. For quite some time, this article was subject to lots of bad edits. Myself and other editors have worked quite hard to clean it up. Today it is now stable, comprehensive, and well referenced. Last week it was accorded GA status. It satisfies all of the FA criteria. I think it is time that it be accorded FA status as well.-- *Kat* 07:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Has this article been through peer review? I have extensive comments, which might be better placed at PR. Sandy 12:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, but I'm beginning to wish that it had.
- I only listed some examples of my objections, which are actually far too extensive to list here. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong object. This article is not ready for FA: GA does not an FA make, and the work needed is extensive. (By the way, with the extent of sourcing, copy edit, and POV/OR issues, I would not approve it for GA either.) I would like to see you run this by the Medical Projects (there are at least 3 Medical WikiProjects that could help). Also, reviewing
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) can provide some helpful tips. I see problems with respect to copy editing, comprehensiveness, quality of sources, undue weight, and
WP:MOS issues at least. You might also want to review
Asperger syndrome, which recently went through
WP:FAR and was mostly brought to standard.
- Weasle words, for example, the first sentence encountered is extremely weasly: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (sometimes referred to as ADD) is thought to be a neurological disorder, always present from childhood, which manifests itself with symptoms such as hyperactivity, forgetfulness, poor impulse control, and distractibility.[2]
- The infobox is not complete and not correctly formatted, see Tourette syndrome for a more thorough example.
- The article is listy. For example, History is a list, should be converted to prose and referenced to higher quality sources.
- Actually I wouldn't mind splitting that section off into a separate article altogether. Would that work?
- Splitting entirely, no. See the guide to writing medical articles - History should be included. You could employ Summary Style, but I don't think it's needed. Read the History of Tourette syndrome to see if you can't convert this to prose. However, addressing these items will not be enough to make this article FA worthy. I suggest withdrawing the nom and dealing with this on the talk page or via peer review. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I wouldn't mind splitting that section off into a separate article altogether. Would that work?
- See also has too many unrelated articles, or articles that should be incorporated into the text. Why one researcher and not others?
- Sourcing - first, please include PMIDs on all journal-published sources, so the reader can easily access them. Far too many unofficial and personal websites are used in the sourcing of this article, and the sources stray much too far from peer-reviewed sources. Please review
this section of
WP:RS. When Biederman and his peers are cited only once, I immediately question the quality of references used. You should be using the highest-quality research and researchers, and no personal websites. POV is always an issue with ADHD. You also have LARGE blocks of text with absolutely no inline citations (for example, see Diagnosis).
- All medical articles that can be found on PubMed (most of them) have a PMID. Journals published outside the United States can't be found in PubMed.
- External links need extensive cleanup: please review
WP:EL and
WP:NOT. Wiki should link only to the highest-quality medical sources and established, recognized organiations, sites, and research: Wiki is not a support group. Linking to appropriate DMOZ categories is one way to avoid the link farm. Not all of your External links qualify as
reliable sources - see link I gave above.
- It is going to be
very difficultimpossible to find credible sources for the minority views that are prevalent. Especially for the sections on alternative medicines and Parental Roles. You just can't find that sort of information credible publications. Which is why the proponents of those views (like Drs. Sobo and Breggin) publish their clap trap on personal webpages.- I disagree. Similarly, on your possible advantages, you cite a non-reliable source, when others are available. Again, for positive aspects from reliable sources, see Tourette syndrome and Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. I know the research, and disagree that any of these views can't be presented from reliable sources. And, if there is no info from reliable sources for the info, it doesn't belong in the article, which is why the article is very POV and contains OR. I understand the controversy you are dealing with, and appreciate the amount of the cleanup you've done to get to where you are, but it is not FA material yet. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is going to be
- Further reading equally needs extensive cleanup; it is out of control. First, it should be alphabetical. Some of the sources are of questionable applicability to ADHD, and may just be adverts. Not all include ISBNs or PMIDs. There are far too many personal websites or sources that don't meet
WP:RS. Eliminate all personal ADHD websites unless you can justify them as reliable per the criteria above.
- I wouldn't call it out of control, but I have trimmed it down and alphabetized it considerably. By the time you read this (hopefully) I'll have the ISBNs in there as well.
- Now, turning to content:
- I see no mention of comorbids. Comorbidity in ADHD is very high, and huge issue: it should be mentioned.
- Terminology does not include DAMP, which - bogus or not - needs to be addressed.
- Your first image is a brain scan: there is extreme controversy and misinformation in the field (think D. Amen) surrounding the usefulness of brain imaging in ADHD. Presenting a brain scan early on - without discussing that controversy - could mislead the reader. The article says, it's not complete or comprehensive, has no source, and needs to be copy edited.
- Huh? The image is sourced.
- Not the point - the problem is that the issue of brain imaging work in ADHD is not dealt with comprehensively or accurately. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? The image is sourced.
- "Other diagnostic methods, such as those involving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), may detect the presence of ADHD by analyzing images of the patient's brain, are usually not recommended (see brain scans). " The article also says: "Neurometrics, PET scans, FMRI, or SPECT scans have the potential to provide a more objective diagnosis." To my knowledge, this statement is completely inaccurate. The usefulness of brain imaging is still as a research tool, not as a diagnostic tool. This article needs to cite its sources. Because of sentences like this, I suspect POV or OR in the article, and question its GA status.
- Paragraph has been reworded.
- Undue weight throughout: Diet as a cause is given more weight than more accepted causes.
- There really isn't an accepted "cause" of ADHD. Genetic factors come close but even then, there isn't much known. That paragraph
- On the other hand there are many, many theories related to diet. None of them have been given more than two sentences, but since four or five of the most common ones are mentioned, that paragraph is naturally longer.
- Genetic is the most accepted cause; undue weight is given to others. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Alternative treatment is given more weight than mainstream treatment (which is another List, by the way, which should be converted to prose). Again, POV and OR is apparent in the article, which is light on the medical viewpoint.
- I'll work on turning the mainstream treatment list into a paragraph.
- Examples of need for copyedit and better sources: "There is no compelling evidence that social factors, alone, can create ADHD. (However, see discussion of parental role in section below) The few environmental factors implicated fall in the realm of biohazards including alcohol, tobacco smoke, and lead poisoning. Allergies (including those to artificial additives)[29] as well as complications during pregnancy and birth--including premature birth--might also play a role." There are VERY good sources about the role of epigenetic factors in spectrum disorders, and the article cites none of the good ADHD medical research. Also, sentence needs copy edit.
- The article cites work done by Hallowell, Ratey, Zamektin, Wilens and Cohen among others. Those are some of the most highly respected researchers in the field.
- Short, stubby paragraphs and sections - the TOC is out of control and overwhelming, and many of the sections need to be converted to better prose.
- OK, there is MUCH more, but this should be enough. I don't think the article is close to being FA ready, POV and OR need to be addressed, the article needs to be cited and sources used improved, and I *highly* recommend you try to get the WikiProjects involved.
Sandy 15:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Opinion noted. :-) -- *Kat* 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is *much* more, but I don't believe FAC should be overburdened by listing everything here: it would take too many pages. Re-working a few sections and lists will not address the problems. Sandy 18:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
On a separate note, the templates on the ADHD article talk page for FAC and GA have been altered; the GA template does not include the correct links, so it doesn't seem wise to be writing individual templates when standardized ones are supposed to be used. Sandy 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are the articles which should be linked to in the completed infobox:one of the WikiPhysicians should be able to help on that:
- eMed from pediatrics (with a clear discussion of prevailing thought on causes, diagnosis, treatment, comorbids, differential diagnoses)
- eMed from psychiatry (same)
- Medline
As you will see from these sources, the Wiki article still has quite a ways to go. Sandy 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -working in the field of mental health as I do, I can say that the causes of the syndrome of symptoms we call ADHD is much more controversial and disputed than schizophrenia, autism, PTSD and the article needs to reflect that rather than present it as a given. Cas Liber 20:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)